Abstract

Citations (1)

Footnotes (20)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id618382. ; Size: 89K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Should Like Cases be Treated Alike?

Are there any good reasons to treat previous judicial decisions as legally binding in similar cases, just because they are similar, even if the underlying reasons of the previous decisions determined the result? I argue in this short essay that this is the relevant question about treating like cases alike, and I offer two possible principles that may ground an affirmative answer: the principle that justice should be seen to be done, and the principle of protected expectations. Both answers are criticized as over inclusive and only partly defensible. Finally, the essay concludes with a suggestion that there are two modes of analogical reasoning in adjudication, and that one of them may rationalize a certain type of cases in which like cases should be treated alike.